Bandy is going to Qld, SA and Vic in June - July. He is sponsored by UCIS Qld, Uniting Church Investment Fund (SA) and UCA Funds Management, Vic, as well as MediaCom.
Some reactions to Thomas Bandys Kicking Habits: Welcome Relief for Addicted Churches (Abingdon, 2001).
It tends to be fashionable, especially in academic circles, to attempt to establish ones intellectual credentials by deconstructing the thinking and proposals of others to adopt a negatively critical, sometimes even sneering, approach to what others think and say. In Australia, this is re-enforced by our cultural predilection to be knockers , to distrust authorities and intellectuals, and to chop off the tall poppies. This is not a game I play.
I also get a bit tired of Christians who are surer of which other Christians they disagree with and why, but are less sure what they believe themselves.
There is, however, a place for sober critique of the thinking of others; to give credit where credit is due and to ask questions to push our corporate reflection and discourse further. This is particularly important in the church where we are dealing with the truth of God. These are serious matters and not ones for frivolous or immature game-playing.
With Thomas Bandy coming to Australia in a month or two to conduct seminars and workshops in various cities, it is helpful to prepare ourselves by engaging in some conversations about his contribution.
I have argued elsewhere that in a time of change, when old paradigms are collapsing and new paradigms are being born, that it is particularly important to go back to fundamentals and to ask basic questions about the nature of the church, the nature of theology and how we nurture good theological conversation. My overall reaction to Bandys Kicking Habits is that he does some helpful social analysis, has some useful practical suggestions for the church of the twenty-first century, but fails to ask the right basic questions. Had he done so, his work would be much more valuable to the church.
Let me firstly list out some of the things with which I found myself agreeing.
? His insistence that we live in a post-secular time, and that many people have a deep spiritual hunger (p. 11) and the churchs role is to deepen spirituality, especially of adults (13).
? I think his list of institutional addictions (p. 29ff) is generally helpful.
? His basic thesis that the problems of the church are not programmatic but systemic is probably correct, (although they may also be theological!)
? He is right in insisting that evangelism is not church recruitment, but has to do with genuine conversion (p. 65, 132).
? His view that people need the healing power of God in their lives more than they need information (p.79) is correct although I suspect that the healing power comes partly through information.
? I like his proposal about organising the church around small groups, which are built on the interests of the members of that group and engage in prayer, Bible discussion, intimate sharing and a common mission activity.
? His call for lean management so that people can engage in ministry (pp. 138, 204f) is spot-on. His devastating critique (perhaps a somewhat exaggerated caricature?) of the journey of a creative idea in a declining church (p. 127) is a timely warning.
? His three criteria for supporting a ministry proposal are useful (i.e. try it as long as it [a.] does not contradict the basic vision, values and beliefs of the congregation; [b] it addresses real needs and spiritual yearnings; and [c] it emerges from the spiritual maturity of the individual making the proposal) p. 88).
? His insistence that property is a means to an end (p. 95).
? His proposal that worship moves from trying to be a spectacle to being an activity of a spiritual community (p. 108f).
? His exposition of 20th century assumptions compared to 21st century assumptions (p. 36) has some helpful insights. Similarly, his discussion of generational differences (Fred & Freda versus Bob & Sally pp. 36ff), albeit of necessity generalised and perhaps a little exaggerated, are thought-provoking.
? His exhortation to move from institutional mission agendas to personal discipleship, which includes justice advocacy and personal faith-sharing, is useful (pp. 13, 30). (I would still hold that there is a place for professionally trained people to whom those with deep needs can be referred.)
? Bandy also rightly argues that a clearly articulated congregational vision is vital (p. 16).
? He longs for a variety of musical styles in worship (p. 194).
? I suspect he is right that the pointers to the new future are the adventurous fringe churches (p. 15) and that people on the fringe of church life help us to discern the future (pp. 23, 173). This is not to say, however, that leaders or church associations or prayer groups have nothing to contribute as Bandy seems to think (p. 35, 119).
? He affirms that stress is a normal part of congregational life (p. 223).
? Bandy argues that lay leadership training is a key priority for the congregation (p. 90f). He believes that the key role of church staff is to envision, train, and motivate ministry. (But would he include teaching in training or is only skill training? Note that his in his prescription for worship includes no preaching, but rather a mentoring message p. 165!? He also stresses that what is important in worship is not what people know, but how people feel p. 166!? I have big problems with his exclusion of learning the content of the faith. I may be a baby-boomer, but believe there is still something to be said for faith in search of understanding .)
? I found his suggestion that the expectation that a congregation can be gripped by a vision of church transformation, through consensus, is like expecting an alcoholic to be gripped by a vision of health through consultations with his drinking buddies at the local bar (p. 29) challenging. (As a Uniting Church, we are committed to consensus decision making, but often lack vision. It seems to me that the primary function of leadership is articulating the vision, but without some kind of consensual support, no one will follow.)
? Bandy argues that If church members have a chronic controversy or problem which they just cannot seem to solve, chances are the problem, however large or small, is but a symptom of addiction (p. 35). I do wonder if our continued obsession with the issue of homosexuality is a sign of lack of clear focus on our central task.
Let me now suggest where Bandy might have served us better had he demonstrated a better grounding in theology.
1. Bandy suggests in a number of places that doctrine is not important (pp. 13, 241, 251f). (Consider also his claim that all you need to know is your experience with Jesus p. 24.) It is not clear what he means by doctrine. Does he mean the received tradition, the core of our faith? Does he mean outmoded beliefs from the past which arose because of social conditions or intellectual movements prevailing at the time, and were useful ways to articulate the faith then, but are inadequate expressions today? Does he mean that theological reflection in the current context is unimportant?
Surely it is important to hold on to central beliefs those which hold us within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church! Without that we can hardly claim to be Christian. We would then simply be another social club of fairly like-minded individuals, albeit with a religious veneer rather than a community called into being by the living God for a specific purpose.
Nor could I agree that serious theological reflection in our current context situation is unimportant. I support whole-heartedly Darrel Guders view that the answer to the current crisis in the church of the West will not be found in problem solving; the real issues are spiritual and theological (see his Missional Church).
What I do find helpful, however, is his suggestion that we hold to a minimal number of key beliefs and values, and avoid pointless arguments about secondary issues (p. 115). This, of course, is the UCA approach when it asks ministers to be guided by the Basis of Union defining that as willingness to live and work within the faith and unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church .
2. He does not articulate his understanding of church. I think this leads him down some dead ends. Had he established clearly form the start, both in his own mind and in the minds of his readers, that the churchs role is to witness to and embody the Reign of God as inaugurated in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, he could have avoided what I regards as some serious dangers.
He suggests, for example, that there should be no membership classes or baptismal preparation (p. 76, 78). If we understand baptism as initiating people into the reign of God for the first time, and recognise that, in the post-Christendom age, people generally have little idea of basic Christian beliefs or the Scriptures, or know how to relate these to contemporary thought-forms and practices, it soon becomes obvious that we do indeed need to initiate people very carefully and thoroughly. An increasing number of churches now appreciate how important an extended catechumenate is, and are implementing it.
3. This touches on another theological inadequacy in Bandys thinking. He does not state clearly what the relationship between theology and culture is. He states that God can use any cultural form (p. 33). The question is not Can God use it? , but Does God use it? Yes, we have to articulate the faith in ways people can understand and which relates to their experience. But at what point does cultural accommodation become a compromise of essential Christian beliefs? Bandy seems preoccupied with what works (presumably what engages people), but does not face the question: Just because something engages people, is it Christian? In what ways is the Christian life-style a narrow way ? In what ways are we called to take up our cross and act against our own wants and needs in order to be obedient to Christ? These are important issues Bandy appears to ignore.
4. Bandy has an inadequate understanding of worship. He sees worship as more a motivational event than an informational event (pp. 32f, 136, 188). His criterion for good worship is Do people feel good afterwards? (p. 119). People may feel good after all sorts of experiences, but they may have nothing to do with worship. Of course, we may feel good after worship, but we may also be shaken to the core by the awesome reality of the living God, become deeply aware of our own sinfulness, be deeply challenged about our own ingratitude for Gods goodness. What matters in worship is not how people feel afterwards, but whether or not they have come face-to-face with the living God who is creator of the universe, who is the Word of God in Jesus, who is the ever present Spirit present in the midst of the Christian community and deep within our own beings. To be fair, he does qualify this somewhat when he states that good worship helps people to experience the power of God and walk with Jesus (p. 21), but this is still well short of an understanding of worship as is found, for example, in Don Saliers Worship as Theology: Foretaste of Glory Divine (Abingdon 1994).
5. A further example of the paucity of Bandys theology is his misunderstanding of agape (love). He defines this as especially patience, kindness and humility (p. 28) and contrasts it with eros, which he affirms (p. 238f). While patience etc may well be included, I believe the Biblical understanding is much deeper than this. It is evidenced supremely in Christs self-giving on the cross for us. It is much more than a thin veneer of well-meaning niceness. It is costly self-giving, a virtue for which Bandy seems to have little inclination.
His assertion that the church he endorses is not interested in investing time and energy nurturing people who have no intention of doing anything for anyone else (p. 80) seems un-Christian. There is no place here for God-modelled grace before we are capable of response. And what of the people in my congregation who have Downs Syndrome, or who have been so badly battered by lifes experiences that they need a lengthy time just to be loved and healed before they can go engage in ministry?
6. What are we to make of Bandys claim that The cross, as a symbol, has lost serious meaning for the public & People have learned that no one can follow Christ. No one can bear such a cross. In their eyes, the imitation of Christ is a pretension and an arrogance assumed by elitist, ecclesiastical church members & The public has had enough of crucifixion already they yearn for resurrection. (p. 247)? I have three questions: 1. Does the public set the agenda for the church or does Gods revelation? 2. Have we not always held that the cross and resurrection are two sides of the one truth and you cant have one without the other? 3. How do we account for the millions who have seen The Passion of the Christ (whatever we think of the movie) in recent weeks? Are we really just in the business of affirming people and helping them to feel good? I suspect that even Bandys public would discern that as unsatisfying and shallow lacking the full depth of the historic Christian faith.
I think the real creative edge in ecclesiology will come from a combination of both perceptive social analysis and careful theological reflection.
Let me hasten to add that these thoughts are based only on my reading of Kicking Habits. I would like to hear some hard debate about Thomas Bandys contribution. In what ways can he help us? Where should we be cautious? I would hope that some of my initial reactions open up some useful discussion.
Rob Bos National Consultant, Theology & Discipleship National Assembly, Uniting Church in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PO Box 483, Redbank, Qld 4301, Australia http://assembly.uca.org.au/TD Easter 2004.
--
Stephen Webb Media Officer Communications Unit NSW Synod, Uniting Church in Australia Box A2178, Sydney South, NSW 1235, Australia email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +61 2 8267 4308; Mobile: 0423 259 945; Fax: 9267 4716; Web: nsw.uca.org.au/cu/ & insights.uca.org.au/ ------------------ The Communications Unit publishes the monthly magazine Insights, conducts public relations for the NSW Synod of the Uniting Church, and provides a variety of communications services. These include writing, editing, web consultation and development, desktop publishing and graphic design, public relations and advertising. For a consultation or free estimate on your project call the Communications Unit at (02) 8267 4307.
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
